logo

This Product is Licensed to ,

Change Font Style & Size  Show / Hide
24

  •            

 
CDJ 2026 APHC 1432 print Preview print Next print
Court : High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Case No : IA No. 1 of 2026 IN Writ Petition No. 19091 of 2025
Judges: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NYAPATHY VIJAY
Parties : K. Pradeep Reddy Versus The State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. By Its Principal Secretary, Home Department, Guntur & Others
Appearing Advocates : For the Petitioner: G.V. Shivaji, Advocate. For the Respondent: GP for Services I.
Date of Judgment : 05-08-2026
Head Note :-
Subject
Summary :-
1. Statutes / Acts / Rules Mentioned:
- None

2. Catch Words:
- Review
- Appointment by Transfer
- Writ Petition
- Reconsideration

3. Summary:
The petitioner, a Sub‑Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve), sought reversion to his earlier post after being promoted to Inspector (Armed Reserve). Earlier, the Court had directed the respondents to consider his appointment by transfer to Sub‑Inspector (Civil). The respondents rejected his claim, prompting a review of that order. The Court examined the earlier Division Bench judgment and held that the respondents were merely required to reconsider the case, not to reject it outright. Consequently, the review application filed against the speaking order dated 19.04.2025 was dismissed. No costs were awarded, and any pending applications were ordered to stand closed.

4. Conclusion:
Petition Dismissed
Judgment :-

1. The present Application is filed seeking for reviewing the Order dated 07.08.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.19091 of 2025.

2. The Petitioner was initially appointed as Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) on 30.12.2008. Thereafter, a notification was issued on 31.01.2020 seeking for willingness of appointment to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil) and the Petitioner had given his willingness. While the application was pending for consideration, the Petitioner was promoted as Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) on 04.08.2023. While so, the Petitioner submitted a representation on 12.02.2025 seeking to relinquish his promotion to the post of Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) and requested for reversion to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Armed Reserve) considering for appointment by transfer to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). As the same was not considered, W.P.No.6023 of 2025 was filed before this Court.

3. This Court taking note of the Order dated 10.02.2021 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36252 of 2018 disposed of the said Writ Petition directing the Respondents to consider the case of the Petitioner for appointment by transfer to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police (Civil). Pursuant thereto, a Speaking Order was passed on 19.04.2025 rejecting the case of the Petitioner and the same was challenged in W.P.No.19091 of 2025. This Court taking note of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C.S. Mander v. State of Punjab (1990 (5) SLR 528) disposed of W.P.No.19091 of 2025 directing the Respondents to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the Division Bench Judgment of this Court in W.P.No.36252 of 2018 and pass appropriate orders thereon. Paragraph 10 thereof reads as under;

                  “10. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the Respondents to reconsider the case of the Petitioner in terms of the Division Bench Judgment in W.P.No.36252 of 2018 and pass appropriate orders thereon as expeditiously as possible. There shall be no order as to costs.”

4. Thereafter, the Respondents passed a Speaking Order on 19.04.2025 distinguishing the applicability of Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36252 of 2018. After passing the Speak Order, the present Review Application is filed.

5. Though the learned Assistant Government Pleader appearing for the Respondents sought to distinguish the applicability of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.36252 of 2018, in the opinion of this Court, the same is not warranted considering that the Respondents were only directed to reconsider the case of the Petitioner. Accordingly, the Review Application is dismissed.

6. No order as to costs.

7. As a sequel, pending applications, if any, shall stand closed.
 
  CDJLawJournal